Listen to any of your friends who take Black and White pictures.
Pick up on what most consumers have forgotten.
Film is cheap.
I'm not saying that it's poor quality, I'm saying that it doesn't cost that much. Sure, if you go to someplace that doesn't sell that much film, black and white will run $5 or $6 a roll, because everyone buys color.
Go to a camera shop and ask about bulk loading.
They'll tell you that if you're not careful you'll scratch your film.
They'll let you know that the loaders can be a pain.
They'll point out that if you mess up on closing the light trap in the
loader, you've just lost about 90 feet of film.
Then they'll say that your cost per roll drops down to about $1.
It's easy. It is REALLY cheap. Any serious B&W photographer will tell you that it's the only way to go. It also gives you the advantage of knowing what's in your camera. From one roll to the next, you're dealing with the exact same film. It's possible to get truly consistent results.
It doesn't take a lot of equipment, but it does take some specialized stuff. You'll need:
Any "daylight bulk loader" has a simple basic idea. Keep most of the film out of the light. There's a reservoir for the big roll of film, and a working area for the cassette that's being loaded, and a light trap in between that allows the film (but not light) to pass through.
There are two basic types of bulk loaders. There's the "Watson", and Lloyd's. They are both simple to use, and it's a matter of personal preference as to what you pick. My friend down at the PhotoArt House uses the Lloyd's and I use the Watson. The structural difference is slight, the principles are the same. To tell what you're looking at is simple. If it says "no felt light trap" and has two big circles (one about 4 inches in diameter. the other about the size of a 35mm film can) and the edges are tangent lines between them, you've got a "Watson". These click off the frames as they go by. The Lloyd's has a felt light trap, so it's almost impossible to expose the film, but if it's dirty, you may scratch the film. You just count the frames as you crank them off... there is a guide on the loader as to how many turns for a certain length roll.
No matter how you do it, you'll need to wind an extra 4 frames onto your roll. This accounts for:
And of course, A quick note on why you might not want to go for particularly long rolls. Nikon, and I'm pretty sure Pentax, maybe even Canon make "Magazine backs" for some of their cameras. These take 250 exposure rolls. Maybe if you have a lot more darkroom equipment than I do, You can process these yourself. I accidentally wound up a 40 exposure roll once. I couldn't fit it onto the developing reel. I ended up winding about 6 exposures worth back into the cassette and cutting the film off. And then, After developing, I looked at what I had lost.... probably the best 2 shots on the roll. Now, I usually go for 25 exposure rolls. The whole film fits on the reel just fine, and it's a comfortable length to work with.
This should last you a ridiculous amount of time, if you're a casual photographer. For example, my father hasn't actually USED a camera in 12-15 years. When I was poking around through his darkroom stuff, I found a bulk loader. Curious, I asked him what was in it. Turns out it was still loaded with Tri-X from about 1980. He said he didn't mind if I took it out. There was about 3 feet left from a 100 foot roll... after 17 years.
I wasn't brave enough to try to shoot it or develop it...
SCALA is neat. If you can find a place that sells it, look around for the advertisements for SCALA. Agfa SCALA 200 is a B&W Transparency film. That's right, B&W POSITIVES, not negatives. The images that come from Scala are simply fantastic. On the other hand, Agfa doesn't sell the film in countries that don't have at least 1 certified lab for processing. There are, last I checked, 4 labs in the USA certified for SCALA process. I've only shot a very small amount of SCALA, and here's my impression of it.
On the other hand, I have shot quite a bit of pan. Panchromatic B&W is sensitive to visible light. It's sensitive to all visible light. It looks "natural". It seems that everyone makes a pan film. There's Tri-X pan, Plus-X pan, Technical pan, and TMAX (and that's just the general purpose Kodak films). There's Agfapan, Fuji Neopan, and reportedly Ilford makes some good B&W pan films too.
Ortho (orthochromatic) films are not sensitive to red. This means that they can be handled under a red safelight in the darkroom. Of course, the red-insensitivity makes "normal" photography work a pain, but it makes darkroom copying a breeze. Ortho films tend to be specialty films. If I bought an ortho film, I'd get it as a sheet film and use it to make B&W transparencies out of my negatives.
IR is sensitive to Infra-red light. Don't know much more about it than that. Other than of course, you have to change the focus on the camera, use special filters to keep out the visible light, and generally shoot yourself in the foot. But it does make some neat pictures.
Anything that's a medium speed panchromatic film. This will probably be what you want. For those few occasions when you'll want a fast film, buy them pre-loaded. For those even fewer occasions when you'll want a spectacular slow film, buy Agfapan APX 25. What convinced me on this? My friend at the camera shop shot some. He then developed and enlarged. He mentioned something about "no visible grain on a 20x30 print". APX 25 also requires minimum compensation for long exposures. Only 1 stop exposure compensation at 100 seconds! That's fantastic. Minimal reciprocity failure. But anyway, that's the film.
BTW:I shoot APX 100 as an everyday film. It's great in daylight, acceptable with flash, and I can even hold "still enough" to shoot it with available light at night in the basement. It's also the lowest cost bulk film I've found.